drmiler

The wealthy do pay more taxes and they can afford to pay slightly higher taxes. Higher taxes on middle income Americans will cause financial problems to them. The point you all do not address is that Bush rational for the tax cuts in 2001 was to return a “projected surplus” that NEVER EXISTED. How does one return something that DID NOT EXIST?

drmiler The wealthy do pay more taxes and they can afford to pay slightly higher taxes. Higher taxes on middle income Americans will cause financial problems to them. The point you all do not address is that Bush rational for the tax cuts in 2001 was to return a “projected surplus” that NEVER EXISTED. How does one return something that DID NOT EXIST?

Try again. That is NOT an answer to ID. Let me help:

"The gap between rich and poor -- a rallying cry for some congressional Democrats wanting to increase mandates on business -- isn't really growing that much, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau. From 2001 to 2005 -- the last year data was available -- there was virtually no statistical change in income inequality, based on a statistical test by the Census Bureau, requested and released by Congress's Joint Economic Committee."

Drmiler

“Isn't growing that much” but it is growing!

The issue you have not addresses is that the REASON Bush gave for his tax cuts was because the American taxpayers were OVER TAXED because we had, according to Bush, this PROJECTED SURPLUS that needed to be returned. NEWS FLASH There was NO surplus and therefore NOTHING to give back. That means the people were NOT being overtaxed relative to our spending. If there in NO Surplus there should be NO Tax Cuts to return something that does not exist.

Greenspan and O’Neil had it right-- They told Bush the tax cuts should be tied to the SURPLUS. If the Surplus did not materialize the tax cuts should be ended. They also warned Bush NOT to return to annual budget deficits. They knew what they were talking about but as usual Bush did not listen to people that have the experience. The Bush Surplus must be the same place as the Bush WMD in Iraq!

“Isn't growing that much” but it is growing! The issue you have not addresses is that the REASON Bush gave for his tax cuts was because the American taxpayers were OVER TAXED because we had, according to Bush, this PROJECTED SURPLUS that needed to be returned. NEWS FLASH There was NO surplus and therefore NOTHING to give back. That means the people were NOT being overtaxed relative to our spending. If there in NO Surplus there should be NO Tax Cuts to return something that does not exist.

Sorry but this is NOT the topic you started with, is it? This was supposed to be about Iraq policy. However we got off on a side topic as per usual.

Your comment was, and I quote:

Thanks to Bush and his policies the rich are richer, the poor are poorer, the middle income workers are about the same

And both ID and myself have called you on it. ID even offered proof which you immediately twisted to suit your porpose. Yes the gap is going to grow. No matter what you do or say....it's called progress! If it doesn't grow the country is in a "recession", get it? This had NOTHING to do with tax cuts. Now you're trying to bring in the tax cuts. Again nothing to do with topic.


And I notice you can come up with NO convincing arguement against the Census Bureau which absolutely REFUTES your position.

From 2001 to 2005 -- the last year data was available -- there was virtually no statistical change in income inequality, based on a statistical test by the Census Bureau, requested and released by Congress's Joint Economic Committee."

Lets see you argue your way out of this.

Drmiler

I Think it is interesting that you site the Census Bureau concerning income inequality but when that same agency said the AFTER INFALTION Average Weekly Wage is lower then in 2001 you say that is not true!.

The Data from CBO shows that in 2005 70% of the Bush Tax Cuts are flowing to the wealthy. 51% of the tax cuts in 2005 go to the top 1%.

You refuse to address the question of the REASON Bush gave for his tax cuts-- To return a projected Surplus that DID NOT EXIST!


As to the subject of this Blog I have not been shown ONE reason why what I have suggested as a NEW Policy in Iraq is not a policy that we should try!

You refuse to address the question of the REASON Bush gave for his tax cuts-- To return a projected Surplus that DID NOT EXIST! As to the subject of this Blog I have not been shown ONE reason why what I have suggested as a NEW Policy in Iraq is not a policy that we should try!

The "reason" was "never" the issue. And I didn't cite anything, ID did! So then you're trying to say the census bureau is wrong in it's information? Your original statement said NOTHING about why the tax cuts.

Thanks to Bush and his policies the rich are richer, the poor are poorer, the middle income workers are about the same

Silence is consent.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard you say, Col. And you've said some doozies.

Using your logic, then your lack of articles about the Aryan Nations must mean you agree with them, huh?

Actually, your strategy makes sense. Your incredibly irrational leap of "logic" on the other hand, leaves much to be desired.

Drmiler

CBO has released data that shows that the top 10% are the only economic group that is better off during the past 6 years. The Poor are much worse off because their wages have been static and they must pay the higher costs that we all must pay. The census Bureau Data showed that AFTER INFLATION there has been NO real wage increase during the past 6 years.

Thus "the rich are richer” Just as I said. The "the poor are poorer" and the "the middle income workers are about the same ". Just like I said!!!!!!!

Just one of many articles that show where the Bush Tax Cuts are going:




By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: January 8, 2007
WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

Skip to next paragraph The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years.

The study offers ammunition to supporters and opponents of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts, which are all but certain to touch off a battle between the president and the Democrats who just took control of Congress.

Democratic leaders have taken pains to avoid an immediate fight over the tax cuts, most of which are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. But Democrats are looking for ways to increase revenue well before then, in part because they want to spend more on education and energy without increasing the deficit.

Economists and tax analysts have long known that the biggest dollar value of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts goes to people at the very top income levels. One reason is that two of his signature measures, tax cuts on investment income and a steady reduction of estate taxes, overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest households

Here is another article:

Big Gain for Rich Seen in Tax Cuts for Investments
E-MailPrint Single Page Reprints Save

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: April 5, 2006

Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia

Graphic: Who Benefits Most From Tax Cuts on Investment Income

Graphic: Where the Dividends Live

Interactive Graphic: Dividends in Your County
Related
A Terrain That Peaks at $33,392 and Bottoms at $21 (April 5, 2006) Correction Appended


The first data to document the effect of President Bush's tax cuts for investment income show that they have significantly lowered the tax burden on the richest Americans, reducing taxes on incomes of more than $10 million by an average of about $500,000.

An analysis of Internal Revenue Service data by The New York Times found that the benefit of the lower taxes on investments was far more concentrated on the very wealthiest Americans than the benefits of Mr. Bush's two previous tax cuts: on wages and other noninvestment income.

Drmiler CBO has released data that shows that the top 10% are the only economic group that is better off during the past 6 years. The Poor are much worse off because their wages have been static and they must pay the higher costs that we all must pay. The census Bureau Data showed that AFTER INFLATION there has been NO real wage increase during the past 6 years.

So then you "ARE" saying that the census bureau does NOT know what it's talking about! Once again when confronted with FACTS that do not support your position, you either ignore them or brush them off and say they don't know what they are talking about. You're a moron!

Drmiler


I looked at the data and you are correct as is the CENSUS BUREAU. HERE IS THE PROBLEM-- THAT DATA IS JUST INCOME WITHOUT CONSIDERING TAXES.

The data I have sighted shows income AFTER the impact of Federal Income Taxes. You can not spent the GROSS but the after tax income. When you take into effect the taxes, what I have said is correct. The top income groups got the BIG tax cuts. So their after tax income is MUCH higher. The Middle income tax payers got a much smaller cut and there AFTER tax income has not increased any more then inflation. The poor received NO tax cuts and their income has been in general static. That means they did not get any benefit from the tax cuts and must also pay the higher costs for food, energy, insurance, clothing etc. that means their after tax and after inflation situation is worse.

Thus AFTER tax and after INFLATION, WHAT WE ALL HAVE TO PAY OUR BILLS WITH, THE WEALTHY HAVE MORE, THE MIDDLE INCOME ABOUT THE SAME AND THE POOR LESS!

The Bush tax Cuts were very cleverly designed. In 2001 MOST of the tax cuts went to middle income taxpayers. The total was in the $45Billion range. By 2005 the total was approaching $300 Billion and the middle income taxpayers were getting about $60 Billion of the $300 Billion. In other words, starting in 2002, the tax cuts to the upper income groups skyrocketed and the cuts to the middle income taxpayers, after inflation and population growth remained, are about the same. The poor received the same benefit NOTHING. Thus what I said after considering the impact of the Bush tax cuts is correct. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer and the middle income is about the same.